Palle Prakash Babji @ P. Babji vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 2, sought enlargement on bail in FIR No. 55 of 2025 registered at the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 1, impersonating as the manager of SBI Stressed Assets Branch, Koti, induced the complainant with false promises of good returns on investments and procurement of auction properties and gold. The complainant allegedly paid approximately Rs. 20 Crores, receiving fake payment proofs and documents purportedly from various government departments, including the GST Department. The petitioner is implicated based on the confession statements of accused Nos. 1 and 3, which suggest the petitioner called the complainant, impersonating as an SBI Manager, and was involved in receiving the Rs. 20 Crores. The petitioner has been in custody since September 3, 2025, and argues that the material investigation is complete, with co-accused already released on bail.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner/accused No. 2. The Court considered that the petitioner had been in custody since September 3, 2025. It acknowledged that the petitioner's alleged role, as per the confession statements of accused Nos. 1 and 3, was to impersonate an SBI Manager and receive the Rs. 20 Crores. Balancing the facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The reasoning hinges on the petitioner's prolonged custody and the fact that the primary allegations against him, as stated in the confession, have been considered in light of the investigation's progress. The operative directions included executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the SHO every Monday for eight weeks or until the charge sheet is filed, and abiding by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. (presently Section 480(3) of the BNSS).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, accused No. 2, is entitled to be enlarged on bail, considering the stage of investigation and the allegations against him under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2) of BNS and 61(2) of BNS? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent and not connected with the SBI Branch. His implication stems from the confession statements of co-accused, where he is alleged to have impersonated an SBI Manager and facilitated the collection of Rs. 20 Crores. The petitioner argues that the primary allegation against him is limited to this role, and the bulk of the investigation is complete. He also highlights that co-accused Nos. 1 and 3 have already been granted bail, and his period of incarceration has been substantial (since September 3, 2025), negating the need for further custodial interrogation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, stating that the investigation is ongoing. A significant amount of Rs. 20 Crores is involved, and this sum has not yet been traced. The State argues that further investigation is required to recover the amount and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage.